1- I trust that you are not lying; that you believe that what you are saying is true (honesty)
-
-
Show this thread
-
2- I trust that you have the power over yourself and/or others to fulfil the promises you made (dependability)
Show this thread -
3- Since words are vague, I trust that given different situations and interpretations you will keep the spirit of your promises (integrity)
Show this thread -
4- With or without promises, I believe you will try to act in my best interests (love)
Show this thread -
5- I believe that you have the desire AND power to act in my best interests (compassion)
Show this thread -
This came from thinking about relationships, but I think one of the problems with political/economic systems is that we never really get past level 2 (dependability). And we never expect to be able to.
Show this thread -
Like the girl who needs to set her standards higher and stop sleeping with men who screw her over, we need to learn how to have higher standards for what kinds of trust are possible. But how?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like this. It's sort of like having different trustworthiness SLAs for people. I recently ran across https://kajsotala.fi/2014/02/dont-trust-people-trust-their-components/ … which picks apart some of the weaknesses of binary trust, but from a slightly different angle. In the components model, trust is more context-sensitive.
-
The best summary/highlight of the general idea (from what I remember/absorbed) is something they lift from Bruce Schneier:pic.twitter.com/GOolVLNYpg
-
Hmm. I do think there's a sense in which as your trust in someone deepens, you can expand the realm of things you trust them about, and also need to think less about whether to trust in a given situation. E.g. I don't have most of these considerations with my partner of 2 yrs.
-
Yeah, I agree. I often round up to that kind of trust with people I respect and am close to. That said, thinking in components seems helpful for partially trustworthy people or people who are trustworthy in a broad sense but likely to be out of their depth for a particular task.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I definitely agree trust is non-binary, though my model that I call “progressive trust” it a bit different than your divisions. I tend to map it more around the exchange of signals about risk between the parties: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/08/progressive_tru.html …
-
Interesting, yes, trust and risk are related but not stepped. Sometimes we only trust in one aspect of someone or something...like a mirror is always honest but so too can be a random brief convo with a stranger. However compassion can come from a canine companion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nice! Next I'd add stuff about context. See also
@bonnittaroy's excellent interview on@dthorson's podcast: A Source Code Analysis of Trust (CC@mimercha)https://anchor.fm/emerge/episodes/Bonnitta-Roy---A-Source-Code-Analysis-of-Trust-e24ds3 …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.